The so-called " World War " has passed for more than a century, and people have little realization that the inhumanity of this conflict has even had an impact on the depravity that drives this conflict. The film has a "dialogue" with the anti-war art legacy, but is not as obsessed with the visibility of the true face of war in some way preventing the war from happening. The crisis it portrays does not stem from a lack of information, as those looking down from a safe and comfortable tower have rich intelligence on what is actually happening, but it is a cruel act fueled by nationalism.
movie still follows the novel's central character Paul Bowman (Felix Camiller), who and other young recruits are thrown into the chaos on the front line, with explosions and gunslings endlessly, and we see millions of people who will die in battles that last for years. The film strips away all the training and a trace of order at the beginning of the novel, leaving the story completely immersed in chaos, some being driven crazy to survive, while others being deeply trapped in themselves. We can only get a breath when the director shows us the calm of nature, as if we saw what it would be like if the war had not happened. These quiet moments are short-lived, but their contrast with hellish war violence becomes particularly sharp. This destruction is positioned as unnatural and an insult to the devoured surrounding world.
Even if you stay away from the front line, the echo of the battle will never be completely escaped. People here know what is happening every moment, and what awaits them when they are sent back to the depths of this hell on earth. Such conflicts stem from a broader understanding of how terrible it is to be in it, and this work goes one step further. Starting from why Paul didn’t get permission to go back to see his family, this is the most significant change compared to the original, and it also shows that the content that this film is interested in has changed. Specifically, we see top figures in the military and government leadership talking frankly about what is going on. All of these characters don’t appear in the novel, and their key position throughout the film fully illustrates what director Edward Berger wants to express. He shows us the ability to stop violence and tragedy, and every day they procrastinate kills thousands.
The only character who cares about this is Daniel Bruch as Matthias Elzber, who is also a new character that does exist in history, desperately trying to stop the war in order to stop endless death. However, he is an outsider, which makes people pay more attention to how calm and indifferent everyone around him is. Despite his attempts to change the trajectory of conflict, his request for peace came too late for millions who knew they would die. Paul is the representative figure, but countless people like him have been abandoned, as if they were nothing, and even the uniform he wore came from a man who was killed before him and had his name tag abandoned. The central character of the story is a general who enjoys a luxurious meal while his men die in the mud. This is a recurring element in the film, where we see those in power enjoying a meal safely, then switching to the queue waiting silently, and then being sent to the slaughterhouse.It's anger, which in the novel, reaches a breaking point here when men discuss the conflict between them. While ordinary people may not know the full scope of the war that was distorted by propaganda, nor have the power to stop the war alone, those in power definitely know it. Every order that lets soldiers charge over the walls and eventually tear them to pieces is a choice made by those who understand the consequences. The description of this phenomenon in the video,
, proves to be particularly terrible, representing a reality well known to those who make the decision. They did so completely understand what would happen and the losses that would be caused, without any reason and any excuse to justify these decisions, as they sent people into the meat grinder again and again. The "true face" of this war is that they keep staring at it and sending people to die.
So what is the role of anti-war movies or this kind of art? Is it to illuminate the truth, to make what actually happens public, and to let us understand that we will not do this anymore? This idealistic premise is based on the view that the only reason for wars is the lack of awareness of its human cost. The latest release of "No War on the West Front" reveals that not only is this unreal, but that most people with the ability to destroy countless lives do so without hesitation. Trying to get sympathy from those who have nothing is futile, and the result is always the same. The film intends to avoid glorifying such conflicts as one would have hoped, and it also understands that it is all in vain, and Paul's ending once again expands from the novel, which is very different from any previous adaptations, making this even more obvious. video presents a more pessimistic poetic sense, because no matter how firm the new and old versions of "No War on the West Front" are unwavering, it does not change the basic fact that the gears of the war machine will always rotate with the operating lever of power.
